Supreme Court of India
THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF MADRAS versus MADRAS CORPORATION TEACHERS MANDRAM AND ORS.
- Decided
- 8 November 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 660 · 1996 INSC 1315
- Also cited as
- AIR 1997 SC 2131
- (1997) 1 SCC 253
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 660, margin F
These appeals by special leave arise against the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Tamil Nadu passed in OA No. 708193 and 1685/ 93 on August 2, 1994. The appellant-Corporation had adopted a dual policy of appointment of Education Officers either by promotion from the subordinate cadre or appointment by deputation from the Government service. It would appear that the post of Education Officer was upgraded to the post of Deputy Director and they sought appointment by transfer of a Government officer to fill up the post of Deputy Director to supervise the educational standards in the Corporation. The respondents-Union challenged the said action of the appellant in the Tribunal. The Tribunal while upholding the power of the Corporation had directed thus:
pp. 660–661, margin F
"Therefore, a post in the cadre of the Corporation equivalent to the District Educational Officer should be created to which persons from the Corporation's cadre could be appointed and such persons could be considered after a minimum period of experience for advancement to the higher post in the rank of Chief Educational Officer to be in overall charge of the
p. 661, margin A
Corporation's Educational Departments."
p. 661, margin B
Feeling aggrieved against this order, this appeal has been filed, Shri R. Mohan, learned senior counsel for the Corporation, has contended that the creation of the post and prescription of qualifications are the legal policy of the Government or the executive policy of the Government. The Tribunal cannot give the direction to create a post or to prescribe the experience as may be required as an incumbent to hold the post. We find that there is force in the contention.
p. 661, margin B
Learned counsel for the respondents, in fairness, was unable to meet the contention but he sought to sustain this order on the ground that appointment by transfer affects in-service candidates. We cannot go into · it because it is not the subject matter in this case. Under these circumstances, as stated earlier, the question is: whether the Tribunal can give direction to create a post or to prescribe the minimum qualifications for the post? It is well settled legal position that it is the legal or executive policy of the Government to create a post or to prescribe the qualifications for the post. The Court or Tribunal is devoid of power to give such direction. The impugned direction, therefore is clearly illegal.
p. 661, margin D
The appeals are accordingly allowed. But in the circumstances without costs. R.P. Appeals allowed.
p. 661, margin F